In infinite wisdom Christopher M. Jones answered:

Rich <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<40AE0EDF.6070208@somewhere.com>...

Nevertheless, the fairly limited assertion that sub-Jupiter mass
planets exist in greater abundance is pretty well supported by the data on hand (with a few caveats).

Is it? I suggest that this is speculation on the order of the Drake
Equation, and as of yet backed by no data. And I suggest that
for most of the stars where planets have been detected,
terrestrial planets are unlikely or simply impossible due to
the dynamics of the gas giants.

Reread what I wrote, and note especially my addition of the phrase "the fairly limited assertion".  You are arguing about terrestrial planets, it seems.

Are they not of special interest to SETI?

The assertion in question concerns merely sub-Jupiter mass planets.  And there the data is very compelling.

You mean the terrestrial planets discovered around a pulsar?
How is this compelling?

Whether this can be extrapolated to the abundance of terrestrial planets is questionable, but on the whole the evidence is more supportive toward higher abundance of low-mass planets than not.

What evidence?

As to your statement that terrestrial planets may not be able to coexist with certain kinds of gas giants, that's an interesting point but does not bear much on the matter at hand.

Depends upon what you think the matter at hand is I suppose.

Terrestrial planets may indeed be common, but I don't see any
way that can be extrapolated from the data we have, and I doubt
any will be found at most of the stars where we have detected
gas giants.

That was not the assertion.

Read carefully, I made an assertion. Not a prediction as you
seem to think below.

I think you need to ask
yourself whether you are being properly skeptical or
simply contrarian.

I would assume that you think I'm simply being contrarian.

Before the end of this decade we will have substantially useful stastics concerning the
abundance of terrestrial mass planets.

Maybe. Maybe not. We shall see.

Perhaps you should take this time to analyze your position and decide if you are merely setting yourself up for being
proven spectacularly wrong.

By accurately stating the state of the data today, how will
the future (whatever it may bring) prove me wrong?

Ten years ago, on an Apple ][ BBS, I stated that the data is
getting better every day. And it is. But it has not yet gotten
so good that we can speak of certainty about terrestrial
planets, planetary formation, or ET. Maybe the future will
have answers to all three issues, maybe not. I hope it does,
but no matter what the future may bring, I'm not predicting it
or talking about it, I'm talking about what we know right
here right now, and the future will not make that wrong,
right here and right now.

I have asked what reasonable expectation we have of finding
ET, and so far the answers have all been logical. It is also
true that we will not create ET by the force of our logic,
nor will that suffice to find ET should ET exist. How will the
future make this claim "spectacularly wrong"?

Rich